The €3,000 per month luxury welfare apartments

Niallof9

ELM327 wrote: »

That's it, divide up the farm again and again so we all die.
That's the attitude that caused Irish poverty... and you're going to repeat it.


There is a socioeconomic dichotomy here. Poor people who can't afford children have them, and the (real) working class (who have jobs) can't afford them because they need to give their tax money to fund the roustabouts that produce 14 more mouths for others to feed.

exactly and its ****ing immoral and disgusting at this stage.

X111111111111

LollipopJimmy wrote: »

During the week there was an article about a mother who died (heroin overdose) in a hub, she was 29 and 11 years on the housing list.

This was on twitter and I asked why the first port of call for an 18 year old was the housing list and I was vilified. I've spent the last week in few different cities around Holland and Germany and the difference between them and Ireland is frightening

That's horrible. God rest her soul

Lollipops23

I stupidly went on Margaret Cash's facebook page to see how she's getting on in her new home.

The place looks like a hotel; ornate furniture, MASSIVE xmas tree with plenty of goodies underneath it.

Up until a few months ago she could barely feed her kids according to her.

ELM327

X111111111111 wrote: »

That's horrible. God rest her soul

Horrible for the children.
People like her and her ilk should be castrated and have the kids taken into care. No child should see that.

ELM327

Lollipops23 wrote: »

And I'm not sure what her housing situation had to do with it; she could have just as easily died in a private or council home. I have sympathy for addicts of all kinds, but I could never forgive someone who OD'd leaving her kids alone in a hotel room for 2 days.

Amen.

ThunbergsAreGo

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I stupidly went on Margaret Cash's facebook page to see how she's getting on in her new home.

The place looks like a hotel; ornate furniture, MASSIVE xmas tree with plenty of goodies underneath it.

Up until a few months ago she could barely feed her kids according to her.

She should be a poster child for the wrong way to do things - as what is wrong with society - but instead she was held up as a beacon by the media, thus inspiring a legion of Cash-lites which we are now stuck with.

Sweet.Science

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I stupidly went on Margaret Cash's facebook page to see how she's getting on in her new home.

The place looks like a hotel; ornate furniture, MASSIVE xmas tree with plenty of goodies underneath it.

Up until a few months ago she could barely feed her kids according to her.

Travellers have an endless supply of cash. She has over 100k from a will coming to her in a year or so aswel

McFly85

Sweet.Science wrote: »

Travellers have an endless supply of cash. She has over 100k from a will coming to her in a year or so aswel

I heard that. I assume that windfall will mean that anything other than housing assistance will stop once she receives it? Or will she consider it an outrage if the state asks her to spend her own money on raising her kids?

end of the road

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I have a relative with 2 kids by 18. She proudly announced the other day that she had applied for social housing her and her 'angles'.

She barely has a junior cert. No leaving. Has never had a job.

Meanwhile, I'm in my early 30s- pay a mortgage and a car loan. Go out for dinner/drinks maybe once every 2-3 months. Rarely get my nails/lashes done.

She's out every weekend and always has those disgusting acrylic claws preened to perfection. Kids are togged out in designer labels.

I feel like the fool.

it is you who is in the privileged position, as once you keep up the mortgage payments, you will eventually own your house and all that brings.
your relative may be able to go out every weekend and have the false whatever, but she has nothing to show for it all, unlike you.

X111111111111

ELM327 wrote: »

Horrible for the children.
People like her and her ilk should be castrated and have the kids taken into care. No child should see that.

Don't agree with that at all. Terribl for the woman and her children. Every person has the right to have children.

James Brown

Jinglejangle69 wrote: »

Not giving free gaffs to people.

There is people on low incomes who are working in social housing coming out with more money to spend at the end of the month than people working who have to pay mortgages and everything else on top.

They are creaming it.

Yes they are working but have no worries like people who have to pay mortgages and rent.

It’s a farce.

Get a low paid job stacking shelves and never have to worry about a mortgage or rent.

It’s like winning the lotto.

If people who worked hard in school, college or apprenticeships etc and ended up with good money get a social house then I’d be happy.

Equal society and all?

I can't deal with any more willful ignorance. You've no clue or are pretending you don't. I'll bypass your 'free house' shyte.

When people are poor they get a dig out.
Now you can believe some are pretending, some are lazy etc. all you like. These people IMO and Varadkar's opinion are a tiny minority, so catch yourself on and look at the policy makers if you've a problem. Looking at the poor is a pointless distraction.
Some people are getting minted out of this crisis and it's not these tenants.

end of the road

Captcha wrote: »

People should have a place to stay but giving premium property in premium area near public transport (which is used to get to work) is terrible governance.

actually it's good governance as it keeps over all pressure down.

Captcha wrote: »

If you dont work, you should not have priority to live near the public transport that people who go out to work every morning need to use.

they don't, however if they are from the area and that has housing available, and it's close to public transport, then there is no reason not to give it to them.

Captcha wrote: »

Let them walk or get multiple lines, they have the spare time without a job.

not let them walk or get multiple lines.
they can get the services from outside their homes instead.

McFly85

end of the road wrote: »

actually it's good governance as it keeps overall pressure down.

Are you actually suggesting that giving accommodation to people without a job is good governance because our public transport is so terrible that it would be under too much pressure if more people were to use it???

KildareP

end of the road wrote: »

it is you who is in the privileged position, as once you keep up the mortgage payments, you will eventually own your house and all that brings.
your relative may be able to go out every weekend and have the false whatever, but she has nothing to show for it all, unlike you.

Yeah and I have a horrible feeling that in so doing I'm preparing my own downfall - like many others including that poster whom you quote.

Because I fully expect that when I reach retirement age, the state pension will be under serious pressure so they'll have no option but to means test it.

And because we worked and paid in full for our property we'll be told to feck right off because we are sitting on a very valuable asset and thus don't qualify for a state pension.

Whilst someone who hasn't funded a day in their lives themselves will once more qualify for everything going.

Privilege. Who'd want it.

Naos

X111111111111 wrote: »

Most social housing tenants work, i know i do as do most of my neighbours and i pay a percentage of my wages towards rent. Is there always going to be the chancers who couldnt be arsed, sure there is but most are normal working people just trying there best to live their lives.

How exactly did you come up with that?

The majority (54.2%) of those qualified for social housing support are unemployed and in receipt of social welfare payments/ assistance.

Summary of Social Housing Assessments 2018

Lollipops23

end of the road wrote: »

it is you who is in the privileged position, as once you keep up the mortgage payments, you will eventually own your house and all that brings.
your relative may be able to go out every weekend and have the false whatever, but she has nothing to show for it all, unlike you.

What's the difference? In 30 years' time I'll have my home, she'll have hers.

Only she won't have paid a cent towards hers.

Kermit.de.frog

Naos wrote: »

How exactly did you come up with that?



Summary of Social Housing Assessments 2018

No need for such a public execution of another poster

We are not savages here :pac:

colm_mcm

Naos wrote: »

How exactly did you come up with that?



Summary of Social Housing Assessments 2018

Does that 54% include those on disability payments?

marieholmfan

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I stupidly went on Margaret Cash's facebook page to see how she's getting on in her new home.

The place looks like a hotel; ornate furniture, MASSIVE xmas tree with plenty of goodies underneath it.

Up until a few months ago she could barely feed her kids according to her.

God fair play to her. Glad things are going better for them.

marieholmfan

end of the road wrote: »

it is you who is in the privileged position, as once you keep up the mortgage payments, you will eventually own your house and all that brings.
your relative may be able to go out every weekend and have the false whatever, but she has nothing to show for it all, unlike you.

The relative will have a rich and loving family life; worth far more than houses.

colm_mcm

marieholmfan wrote: »

God fair play to her. Glad things are going better for them.

To be fair to Margaret, she stated at the time that she wasn’t poor, she just didn’t have a house.

She had publicly posted on Facebook looking for a 7 seater with €10k to spend. She also regularly was selling quite expensive ‘worn once’ dresses on another website.

blanch152

Naos wrote: »

How exactly did you come up with that?



Summary of Social Housing Assessments 2018

The table on page 18 is stark, only 21.9% of those in receipt of housing support were employed in any capacity. That 21.9% includes those in part-time employment.

The emergence of a permanent underclass dependent on state support through generations is a real risk over the coming decades.

ELM327

blanch152 wrote: »

The table on page 18 is stark, only 21.9% of those in receipt of housing support were employed in any capacity. That 21.9% includes those in part-time employment.

The emergence of a permanent underclass dependent on state support through generations is a real risk over the coming decades.

I agree, but I term that class the neaveaux riché. Never working a day in their lives but propped up by the endeavors of others.
Like the royal family. But more chav.

NSAman

ELM327 wrote: »

Like the royal family. But more chav.

Oh I dunno, have you seen some of the Royal Family lately?

ELM327

NSAman wrote: »

Oh I dunno, have you seen some of the Royal Family lately?

It's the rapey one you have to watch out for.

shesty

victor8600 wrote: »

We need an AMA with a Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Councillor to explain the logic.

Probably this is due to the need to meet some internal bureaucratic targets. Imaging that as a councillor you are given a task to "supply" 87 2/3-bed apartments. No matter the cost. You do that and chalk yourself a win. If you start looking for a cost-effective solution, you lose time and get demoted. Just a theory!

Oh I am sure it is.Doesn't make it right though, but sure it's the joys of having taxpayers money to play with I suppose.

Muir

Naos wrote: »

How exactly did you come up with that?



Summary of Social Housing Assessments 2018

I believe those figures refer to those on the waiting list, not those actually living in social housing. Some of it is poorly worded & therefore confusing, but the numbers didn't quite make sense.

It's the number of people on the list - so deemed to have a need for social housing. That's why there are so many unemployed on it, because people on benefits do have a lower income so will be considered to have a greater need. It also explains why there are so many single households on there - there are a lot of single people on the list but it's harder for a single person to actually get social housing than a family. And it also explains why there was a 16.2% drop between 2017 and 2018 - 14,000 were taken off the list. I was sitting here wondering where 14,000 houses had disappeared to.

Naos

colm_mcm wrote: »

Does that 54% include those on disability payments?

I wouldn't be an expert in the field, but it would according to the source I provided. In fact, it cites 6.7% is for disability.

We of course know there are a number of people who claim disability who are in fact, not disabled.

And for the record, if someone is genuinely disabled then they deserve any & all support. They were dealt a **** hand so it's up to the rest of society to help them out in any way possible.

marieholmfan

Naos wrote: »

I wouldn't be an expert in the field, but it would according to the source I provided. In fact, it cites 6.7% is for disability.

We of course know there are a number of people who claim disability who are in fact, not disabled.

And for the record, if someone is genuinely disabled then they deserve any & all support. They were dealt a **** hand so it's up to the rest of society to help them out in any way possible.

You said it.

James Brown

Naos wrote: »

How exactly did you come up with that?

The majority (54.2%) of those qualified for social housing support are unemployed and in receipt of social welfare payments/ assistance.

Summary of Social Housing Assessments 2018

The Live Register is not designed as a measurement of unemployment as it includes people who are legitimately working part time and signing on part time.https://www.inou.ie/empmeasure/

FG folk can't be praising low unemployment on the one hand and using high employment to dismiss low paid tax paying people like spongers on the scratcher. Well they can and do, but it's horsesh*te.